JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the charge-sheet dated 30.11.2009, summoning order dated 12.03.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 879 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Jay Prakash Gangwar and others, under Sections 406, 506 and 420 of IPC, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District –Udham Singh Nagar. 2. A charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 506 and 420 of IPC. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1262 of 2014 has been filed by the parties, to indicate that they have buried their differences and settled their disputes amicably. Since the victim Yograj has passed away, therefore, he is being represented by his son /respondent no. 3 Mahesh Pal, who is present in person, identified by his counsel Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate. The applicant no. 2 Mahesh Gangwar and applicant no. 3 Bhoop Kishor, are also present, duly identified by their counsel Ms. Khusbu Tiwari Sharma. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and therefore, respondent no. 3 is not interested in prosecuting the applicants. In other words, respondent no. 3 (the person aggrieved) has exonerated the present applicants. 3. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is- whether the respondent no. 3 should be permitted to compound the offence against the accused under Section 420, 506 and 420 of IPC or not? 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650. 5. Learned counsel for applicants also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no. 3 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceeding of the criminal case against the applicants are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably. 7. Permission to compound the offence is granted. As a consequence thereof, the charge-sheet dated 30.11.2009, summoning order dated 12.03.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 879 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Jay Prakash Gangwar and others, under Sections 406, 506 and 420 of IPC, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District –Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 8. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.